Caught in the Middle
With the recent events happening here at the blog, it’s really made me realize how much I really am caught in the middle of two opposing scientific philosophies.
On the one hand, I feel like I’ve been given false information about origins science for the vast majority of life. Not intentionally, of course … the people who gave me the information were given it by someone else, and the information propagated down the line, eventually getting to me.
On the other hand, after embracing science for the last couple of years finally, I still find much of the explanation of origins and Darwinian evolution to be speculative at best, and illogical at worst.
Both sides say the same thing … if I only understood their position better, I would become a convert. The problem is … BOTH SIDES are saying that same thing! And no matter how much you tell me to trust you, I need to be convinced intellectually before either is going to win me over. I very rarely take anyone’s word for important issues. If a person walked up to me and told me to vote for a particular candidate for President, even if it was someone I respected, and just told me to trust them without explanation, I certainly wouldn’t do so. I’ll vote for the candidate that convinces me to do so, not the candidate a person assures me is the best, simply on their word. It just doesn’t work that way for me.
Likewise, I would never expect a person to adopt my position on science or politics just on my word. If I want to change your mind, then I engage in a conversation with intellectually stimulating questions.
But being caught in the middle of two opposing philosophies is still frustrating. Believe me, I wish I had a more concrete position, but I don’t. When people ask me if I believe that Young Earth Creationism is a valid scientific position, I say no. When people ask me if I believe that strict Darwinism is a valid scientific position, I say no.
And it’s not a comfortable position to be in. Ignorance, for me, is torture … not even close to bliss.
In fact, I only wish I had more time to devote to studying the subject. Unfortunately, I’m forced to “trust” experts on both sides, all of whom tell me that they’re right, and the other side is wrong.
Could it be that neither side has it figured out yet? Could it be that tentatively reserving endorsement is actually the most logical thing to do right now? Maybe in 50 years, new evidence will arise. Think about it … if a person in the 1700’s decided on the available evidence that the majority scientific position was correct, they’d certainly be surprised here some 300 years later, no?
Could it be that this “us verses them” mentality actually smothers a good scientific debate?
I’ve never claimed to have it all figured out. In fact, I’ve made it clear that I don’t!
Is that smart?
Did you enjoy this post? Why not leave a comment below and continue the conversation, or subscribe to my feed and get articles like this delivered automatically each day to your feed reader. If you don't have a feed reader, you can always have these articles delivered to your email inbox every day. Click here to sign up.
Trackbacks & Pingbacks
[...] OK, lately I’ve been criticized from both sides of the issue concerning my position on the age of the Earth/Universe. I can’t say it was unexpected, as I had already addressed the fact that both sides consider me to be in error in one respect or another, hence my being “Caught in the Middle“. [...]
Comments
Leave a comment
Line and paragraph breaks automatic, e-mail address never displayed, HTML allowed: <a href="" title=""> <abbr title=""> <acronym title=""> <b> <blockquote cite=""> <cite> <code> <del datetime=""> <em> <i> <q cite=""> <strike> <strong>
Fatal error: Call to undefined function: show_manual_subscription_form() in /nfs/c03/h05/mnt/48320/domains/nathanrice.org/html/wp-content/themes/ElegantBlue/comments.php on line 108
(Ignore my sarcasm if you must … do realize I’m not trying to be mean spirited and that I’m definitely weighing in on something that’s over my head a bit)
What if God Himself were to write down in a book for you what to believe? What if He told you that He was there and that He saw it all?
Would you take His word for it? Or would you think He’s got an ace up His sleeve and just trying to make you see things His way?
More on this: http://mjtilley.wordpress.com/2007/08/16/what-if-we-assume-gods-right/
I realize that this is a fairly complicated question when looked at from the scientific perspective. But what if you looked at all of the evidence through the lens of Genesis 1, holding to that account as a fixed given?
Is anyone even doing that? Seems to me — a very lay perspective — that there’s a lot of working on figuring out what happened at the “beginning” that’s done independant of the one eye witness account that’s been given.
@Matthew T.
I read your post when you originally wrote it, and it definitely made me think. Here is what I have so far…
Doing that creates 3 problems…
1. It assumes that Genesis 1-2 is specific enough.
2. It assumes Genesis is meant to be taken literally.
2. It is useless in apologetics.
I’ll explain …
1. Genesis says nothing of the date of creation. In fact, it is almost purposefully ambiguous. yowm - day or period of time? hayah - was or became?
2. As you’ve mentioned to me before, many good men who know the scriptures very well, the languages used, and the culture to which they were written, have concluded that Genesis was poetic … geared toward understanding rather than historicity. Who knows?
3. When starting with the Bible as an absolute, you alienate those who do not start with it as an absolute. In theory, saying that the Bible was written by God is nice. But in practice, apologetics demands more. You say it was written by God … I say prove it.
For the most part, I do hold Genesis as a given though. I rarely, if ever, question the special creation of humans.
The points I have trouble with are the things not covered in Genesis. As an example from another part of the Bible … Jesus early life, from 12-30, is undocumented. Therefore it is our responsibility as reasonable beings to assume that he went through natural changes like puberty, growth spurts, voice changing, etc. How can we assume them? Science. The same goes for the gaps in Genesis.
Dude I totally sympathize with you…
I have had some of the most violent objections to the logic of certain issues with Christianity and the Bible lately - nearly strong enough to persuade me to abandon them both. But I can’t - because the logical alternative (atheism or ascriptural morality) are so much less intellectually fulfilling, quite blatantly untrue, and contradict the very real personal experience that has been my relationship with God.
Sadly I have to settle with insufficient understanding for now.
Hey mate, I’m happy to convince you of my side! Drop me an email and we can pick up where we left off a year or so ago- Matthew and I have been at it a lot, but I haven’t really gotten back into evolution with you in a while.
@George,
But have you seen our emails??? They take half an hour just to read!!! 
I don’t think either of us have the gift of brevity 
I know you are, man
How about this … let’s make some plans for the coming weeks to do some more guest posting. If you’re up for it, I’d like to send you the details.
Game?
Nathan,
I think the disturbing thing to those outside of the “Christian circle” is that Genesis is clear- strikingly clear. That is exactly why there is such an issue with modern paradigms of earth history - Genesis was written very clearly as a historical book and taken that way by generations of believers (and sorry, the idea that there is contextual uncertainty on the meaning of yowm is ignorance - it has hundreds of oft pointed out contextual confirmations for the traditional day interpretation).
It is just a laughing matter when a non-believer points out the contradiction in the beliefs of old-earth “biblicists”, only to be responded to by being told that, no matter how clear, the bible DOESN’T actually say what it says. And then they that unbeliever finds it even more entertaining when he is told that on issues of “morality” the Bible suddenly DOES say what it actually says.
George is more intellectually honest to reject the entire platform than to pick and choose like you try to do.
-Matt
Matt,
Although I disagree, I appreciate the mild rebuke
Coming from a former, hard-line Young Earth Creationist, I can assure you that my current position on Genesis 1 is anything but what I wanted it to be. It’s not that I came up with it out of the blue in order to appease anyone. Ask George. He has the emails. I’m serious. I was a YEC to the core.
Perhaps you’re right though … at least insomuch as the modern translations have done a good job of sanitizing Genesis 1 from any confusion.
And I’m not saying that it is necessarily clearly pointing to any other theory. Absolutely not! Believe me, I’ve had many a conversation with my dad (who knows Hebrew) pouring over the original texts, looking for clarification. The sad fact is, there is none.
Take for example many of the classifications of animals in our English translations, then look at what the original words meant. The difference would surprise you. For instance, the word “tanniyn” — translated as “whales” in KJV — actually could mean as little as a simple “snake”. My point? It’s not as clear as we would like it to be.
Again, I’m not drawing any conclusions … I’m just saying that even the slightest of lack of clarity is enough for me to take a step back and rethink the current understanding of Genesis.
This isn’t even mentioning the evidentiary reasons for being “caught in the middle”, but that’s another post, I’m sure.
I’ve been arguing the reciprocal of that statement for some time now- it’s more intellectually honest to accept the entire platform literally (ok, even the most die-hard fundamentalist will readily admit that there IS metaphor and allegory throughout both testaments- better to say they accept the entire platform seriously) than to pick and choose. When you embark on the latter course, the question is, why take anything the Bible has to say seriously? I don’t personally think it’s clear either way whether Genesis 1 is intended to be taken literally, but there are other sections that demand a literal treatment- and many of them not only offend what we think we know in a scientific sense, but what we think we know in a moral sense as well. If, as some argue, critical thinking must be applied to such passages (which critical thinking somehow always seems to remove the offending passages from consideration), shouldn’t we apply critical thinking Christ’s resurrection, or to the content of the Commandments? And then, we are forced to ask, how does one go about doing that?
George… I don’t normally say this - but: exactly.
Nathan - you again confirm my point. I have also read into the Hebrew original and, sorry to disagree again, but you are looking pretty hard if you see something besides an indication of a historical, short time period being reported. And that does not even begin to address the moral quandary represented by an origins model accepting death before sin - but that doesn’t really matter if the Bible is a secondary authority rather than a primary one.
My point is not to argue that the Genesis account, or the rest of the Bible, is accurate or true - but that you make yourself a joke when you think you can pick out some moral issues from the Bible that are far more debatable than the origins topics that you so freely rewrite.
It is kind of funny that you take it to be a “rebuke” when I suggest that George is more intellectually honest then you…
-Matt
Matthew,
Sure, I’m looking hard. That’s my entire point. If looked at without scrutiny, then it’s easy to make the same conclusions that we have for centuries. It is in light of new information that we must reevaluate our own texts. Not rewrite them, as you indicated, just reevaluate. Upon reevaluation, I found myself caught in the middle. It’s not difficult to understand why, as there are countless others in my same predicament.
I would disagree with you that the hebrew is as clear as you make it out to be. But I highly doubt we may ever agree on that point, being as subjective as it is.
It’s not that I’m not accepting Genesis 1 as a historical narrative, it’s just that … in light of other information … I’m stuck having to embrace what is, to me, an unclear and confusing text when allowed outside it’s box, especially considering the possible gap between Gen 1:1-2, a theory accepted and embraced for years before The Genesis Flood was released.
Not sure what you mean there. Just because there are two opposite extremes doesn’t mean the truth is held in one or the other, nor does it mean that those who fall in the middle are more or less intellectually honest for doing so.
Nathan,
I am kind of at a loss as to what to say. You are providing an incredible demonstration of how wildly removed from common-sense and logic an individual can go when he is not willing to admit the obvious.
Let me ask you if this is hard for you to understand:
“In my father’s day, he had to work all day, then travel for 5 days before finding another job.”
Does that make sense? Or is it too complex?
I take you to not be an intellectually incompetent fellow, and your mastery of the English language is relatively apparent, so I suppose you probably understand this. Why? Because the intent of the phrase is clear, and there is blatant contextual clarification on the connotation of the words in the sentence.
Why are you so unwilling to appeal to basic rules of grammar and context when it applies to a book that you have emotional/moral/philosophical attachments to?
Again - I am not arguing that the Bible is true, as that is an aside. But you may as well not pretend to be approaching the issue from an objective stance when you are being so dramatically swayed by what you want to believe.
-Matt
I wrote a comment for this, saved it in my inbox, and forgot to post it. Here it is:
Nathan- What kind of evidence, if presented to you today, would convince you that Darwinian evolution is responsible for complex life? What kind of evidence would convince you of intelligent design or young earth creationism?
There’s an ocean of biological and geological data available to us; I don’t think we need to wait for any more to come in.
Temporary agnosticism is usually a reasonable position, but how far should one take it? Should I reserve judgment on whether DNA is responsible for heredity? Is it possible to have a “good scientific debate” of Copernican cosmology?
I just typed “new fossil discovered” into Google and this is the first site that turned up: http://www.newscientist.com/article/mg19025464.600.html
“IT WAS one of the most important events of the last 400 million years: the moment our fishy ancestors began hauling themselves onto dry land. Now a fossil from the very beginning of that crucial transition has been
found in the remote Arctic.”
Evolution predicts such a transitional species would need to exist.
Creationism predicts those fossils shouldn’t be there.
Intelligent design predicts… nothing.
This is the trend every time a new piece of evidence is discovered.
Matthew D.- Let me get this straight: you don’t want to be a Christian, but you don’t want to not be a Christian either?